Feminist Mob Attacks Cathedral

This video is probably NSFW. I read all about the small number of Traditionalist Catholic protestors in Buenos Aires who disrupted a service in the city’s cathedral. But I haven’t heard a thing about this horrifying protest in Buenos Aires last week in which an enraged feminist mob abused a large group of men peacefully praying the rosary and protecting that city’s cathedral from the berserkers. This came from the Catholic web page Lifesite. Excerpt:

The women, many of them topless, spray-painted the men’s crotches and faces and swastikas on their chests and foreheads, using markers to paint their faces with Hitler-like moustaches. They also performed obscene sexual acts in front of them and pushed their breasts onto their faces, all the while shouting “get your rosaries out of our ovaries.”

…Inside the cathedral, 700 people were also in prayer accompanied by their bishop Mos. Alfonso Delgado.

After unsuccessfully trying to get into the building, the women burned a human-sized effigy of Pope Francis. “If the pope were a woman, abortion would be legal,” they shouted.

The attack took place on Sunday, November 24th during the National Women’s Encounter, which annually brings together Argentinean feminists who support “women’s rights.”

The police reportedly told the media they were unable to intervene because “they are women.”

This is utterly grotesque. We in the US have seen our media covering Russian thugs beating up gay protesters. And as I said, we saw images of the radtrads interrupting the Kristallnacht service in Argentina. We have not seen this atrocity. At all. Shocked, shocked.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 98 comments

98 Responses to Feminist Mob Attacks Cathedral

In my experience as a reproductive rights activist and abortion clinic defender, lesbians and gay men were active in the cause because they saw these as part of a continuum of issues involving personal freedom and bodily self-control. On the flip side, folks who oppose same-sex marriage, for instance, also oppose abortion and birth control.

Members of ACT-UP and WHAM! were also involved in self-health initiatives, and I’ve been told that South American feminists have a long history of forming small women’s health self-help groups.

To my knowledge this was not covered in the US Big Media. Why? Possibly because it casts their sisters in solidarity in a bad light?”
*************************************
Mainstream media generally covers what they choose to on smaller news items, even the quality venues like BBC have their own slant.
Minor protests like this only get into press if they fit into a particular narrative or worldview.

I find your second post to be a bit of an epiphany. I think it cuts through a lot of the distractionary rationalizing partisan linguistic BS that humans tend to immediately fall into on these topics. It agrees with both sides and critiques both sides at once, fairly, searching for Truth more than for point scoring.

Yes, these slimeballs and thugs are actually traditionalists and feminists and Muslims and evangelicals and liberals and Catholic clergy. They represent a very real face of these ideologies.

No, these slimeballs and thugs are not actually representative median traditionalists and feminists and Muslims and evangelicals and liberals and Catholic clergy. They do not represent the most common and prevalent face of these ideologies.

Your point about being consistent in the use of clarifying adjectives (to point out radicalism and extremism) is key.

It is, by contrast, accurate and properly nuanced to lament a minority of predatory Catholic clergy, an extreme of murderous Muslims, a faction of fascist traditionalists, an outlier of criminal blacks, a sect of bigoted Baptists, and a radical wing of violent femmes. These types of specific modifiers really should not ever be cut in the name of brevity, because their absence leads to false stereotyping and prejudice.

In the vein of my response to Turmarion, would you be interested in changing the title to “Radical Feminist Mob Attacks Cathedral”? Unlike most article writers for magazines, I believe you have control over your article titles here, and an update would add light and remove heat.

Charge them with sexual assault. Seriously, what else do you call physically touching someone with your breasts, forcefully, and pantomiming sexual acts when they are clearly not welcome, in a clearly hostile and intimidating way? Men are not the only ones capable of sexual assault, it can go both ways. Peaceful protest this ain’t.

Re: “If the pope were a woman, abortion would be legal,” they shouted.

I love the sheer fatuity of this slogan (and it’s one that you hear all the time from a lot of American feminists too). Of course, it says a lot more about the people who say it than anything else.

These folks know that if *they* ended up confronted with an inconvenient, accidental pregnancy, *they* would take care of it right quick. So they assume that everyone else, in their place, would do exactly the same. From that point of view, it’s not difficult to see why they outraged at pro-life men telling them they can’t get rid of an inconvenient baby.

Of course, where this whole cult of selfishness bogs down, is that it’s unable to account for why so many *women* are pro-life. And it’s equally unable to account for why so many women, when faced with an accidental pregnancy that is going to set back their life plans- college, job, marriage, whatever- nonetheless do the right thing and keep the baby.

When you lose your sense of morality, sooner or later you lose your sense of reason as well.

Thank you for your kind words, Darth—glad you found my comment useful and interesting.

Me: And feminists can oppose abortion (see Feminists for Life), and do not necessarily insist that men and women are interchangeable.

Hector: Amanda Marcotte and her gang of witless whackoes would kick you out of the feminist movement for both of those claims, Turmarion.

And I should care what they think why?

They can keep their feminist label, I’m not interested, and neither should you be.

For “they” pick any group of wackos, jerks, idiots, a******s, etc. from any given group; for “feminist” insert Catholic, Muslim, Christian, Anglican, Republican, Democrat, etc., etc., etc. Why should I let wackos, jerks, idiots, and a******s determine what labels I embrace? There are individual Catholics that are very poor advertisements for their faith; that doesn’t mean I’m not going to call myself Catholic. Mutatis mutandis, same with feminism.

RB, I did not intend to imply that women who reject feminism are “dislike feminists because we are ignorant or misinformed”. I do think it’s easy for women, and more broadly, the beneficiaries of progressive movements in general over the last century or so, to forget how much our society has changed and how much better we’ve got it. Do you think the position of women was better in 1913 (or for that matter 1943 or 1953) than it is in 2013? If you answer is yes, then the feminist movement is largely to be thanked for that. If you answer no, then I guess we have to leave it at that and agree to disagree.

Hector and RB, I point here and here. Money quote from the first link, my emphasis:

So, let’s go over this again:

Do you believe that women are human beings?

Do you recognize the full humanity of BOTH men and women

Do you believe in political, social, and economic equality between men and
Women?

Then I hate to break it to you, but you’re a feminist, too. Note, nowhere does it say that feminism amounts to “man- hating” or “trying to be like a man.” Feminism has never been defined that way by anyone except the Rush Limbaughs of the world, who use terms like “feminazi” to demonize and devalue the men and women who seek social justice. Feminism also isn’t about trying to make women the same as men – in contrast, feminism recognizes the difference between the sexes and asks that both sides be treated fairly and equitably based on their unique needs (if we pretend there exist s only a gender binary to begin with). Feminism is just as much about protecting men as it is protecting women. Feminists work to end racism, classism, sexism, ableism, and all other forms of discrimination that exist in our culture. It is a living movement, which tackles new problems as they arise. It is not perfect, because nothing is.

Money quote from the second, edited for length, my emphasis:

feminism n (1895) 1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes 2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests — feminist n or adj — feministic adj

Above, the dictionary definition of feminism — the entire dictionary definition of feminism. It is quite straightforward and concise. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.

Yes, you are.

The definition of feminism does not tell you how to vote or what to think. You can vote Republican or Libertarian or Socialist or “I like that guy’s hair.” You can bag voting entirely. You can believe whatever you like about child-care subsidies, drafting women, fiscal accountability, Anita Hill, environmental law, property taxes, Ann Coulter, interventionist politics, soft money, gay marriage, tort reform, decriminalization of marijuana, gun control, affirmative action, and why that pothole at the end of the street still isn’t fixed. You can exist wherever on the choice continuum you feel comfortable [i.e. you can be pro-life]. You can feel ambivalent about Hillary Clinton. You can like the ERA in theory, but dread getting drafted in practice. The definition does not stipulate any of that. The definition does not stipulate anything at all, except itself. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.

Sorry to break it to y’all, but most of you here are indeed feminists, whether you believe it or not or like it or not. Or if you insist you’re not, then what in the definition of feminism here is a problem for you?

Turmarion asks, “Look, would it be fair if the jerks disrupting the Kristallnacht observation were referred to in news reports as just “Catholic” or “Christian” without the qualification “radical traditionalist” or “extremist”?”

Sure. In fact, it would be much better not to use qualifiers like “radical” and “extremist,” because they’re words of interpretation and disapproval more than description. The reader of the headline here can make his own judgment from the words “mob” and “attacks cathedral.” He doesn’t need mommy editor to explain everything for him.

In fact, you’re still trying to cheat right here. You don’t complain that mainstream Christians or feminists are described simply as “Christians” or “feminists” rather than “mainstream Christians” or “mainstream feminists.” But using qualifiers for one subgroup and not for another is still a form of disavowal. What you’re advocating is not just condescending to the reader, it’s intellectually dishonest.

While we’re at it, here’s another thing you got wrong. If women don’t describe themselves as feminists, it’s not because of right-wing media and Rush Limbaugh. It’s because those who did describe themselves that way tended to be strident, highly politicized, and not much fun. The vast majority of the media has been fully on the feminist side since the 1970s.

“In my experience as a reproductive rights activist and abortion clinic defender, lesbians and gay men were active in the cause because they saw these as part of a continuum of issues involving personal freedom and bodily self-control. “

I, admittedly following Sailer, would say that one of the few Freudian concepts with a glimmer of truth applies here. Being sterile themselves, at least if the follow their urges — homosexuals wish others to be. Or, it’s easier to find f*g hags to pal around with when there are a lot of childless (or child free!) woman around.

Aaron Gross: In fact, it would be much better not to use qualifiers like “radical” and “extremist,” because they’re words of interpretation and disapproval more than description.

First, if you’re going to hold this, you have to be consistent and say this must be true for all groups, even those with whom you might be sympathetic. No one likes it when jerks and a******s belonging to one’s religion, political party, ethnicity, etc. makes a stink in public, especially if said jerks are a minority of said group. The phrase a shanda fur de goyim–“a scandal for the Gentiles”, that is to say, a Jew acting publicly in a way that reflects badly on all other Jews in the eyes of the Gentiles who have historically used any excuse to persecute them–is relevant to all ethnicities, religion, etc., and no one likes it when someone makes a shanda fur whatever the outgroup happens to be.

I actually wouldn’t have a problem with qualification for all subgroups–using “mainstream”, whatever. While it’s true that it’s not the job of the media to hold the reader’s hand, on the other hand there can be no reporting without interpretation, and this is especially true when one is dealing with a complex situation of which your average person has little grasp. What do you call the people who kidnapped the nuns, as mentioned in the other thread? “Anti-Assad rebels”? “Rebels”? “Islamist rebels”? “Muslim rebels”? “Terrorists”? “Insurgents”? “Guys with guns”? All of those are true, but of course the connotation will vary according to which one is used.

It is certainly true that lack of qualification can mislead just as much as qualification. For example, if the Westboro Baptist Church were having a demonstration with posters condemning some group or other to hell, if this were reported as “Baptist group” with no specification, this would obviously give a distorted view of Baptists, of whom Westboro is a microscopic (and execrable) portion.

If women don’t describe themselves as feminists, it’s not because of right-wing media and Rush Limbaugh. It’s because those who did describe themselves that way tended to be strident, highly politicized, and not much fun.

I seriously doubt most women under 30 or 35 even know anything about the excesses of 70’s feminism. My experience is that that those of us in portions of the blogosphere like this are huge outliers who know (and care) far more about things like 70’s sexual politics, goofy college pronouns, and suchlike, than the vast majority of the population. It would be interesting to do a survey on such questions. Short of that, I make no assumption.

M_Young: Memba when NOW was campaigning for the right of short men to play in the NBA?

I assume the intention was to use “discrimination” in the admittedly loose but culturally common sense of “unjust discrimination” or “discrimination for reasons irrelevant to one’s job, value to society, etc.”

That’s kind of funny, inasmuch is shows the progressive myth that somehow life has gotten “better” for women because they have more freedom to work, vote, etc.

Which is all great as far as I am concerned, except that there are many dimensions to life, and it’s very easy to progress in some direction while dramatically regress in other directions.

Case in point, I remember my grand-mothers and grand-aunts as some of the freest, happiest people I met, although they did not have a career outside the home. Are you positively sure they would have had a happier life (in the aggregate) under our contemporary social arrangements? I am not.

Carlo,
I’d agree that my grandmothers/greatgrandmothers,etc were likely happier people in 1913 & I don’t think women have been made any “happier” in modern society.Probably we are more isolated,have less meaningful fellowship with other women,fewer friends,less sleep,less exercise,less exposure to nature, etc.
But perhaps the point being made referred to the variety of career choices available today which did not exist in 1913.
I don’t think men, women, or children are “happier” in general today in spite of modern advances.Or sometimes, because of those.But, that’s where we are.

Words evolve. Modern feminists, for the most part, don’t just want legal equality and the ability to be supported in any lifestyle or career choice they might make. They want a world in which *in fact*, women have an equal share of political, economic and relationship power as men, and if biology militates against that world, then to hell with biology. This is why you see so much feminist antipathy towards women who choose lower-paying, unambitious careers, who prioritize childrearing over career success, who choose to submit to their husbands, etc..

Like, for example, to your remark about ‘equality’, I’d say, what does ‘equality’ mean?

I think women should have an equal right to be political leaders as men, but I think many fewer women have either the talent or interest in being a political leader, so in a perfect society, high political offices would be more than 50% male. I don’t think a world in which women are equally well represented in political and economic leadership positions would really be a world in which *women* are the happiest. That has less to do with ideology, and more to do with biology. Men and women are equal in the sight of God, but they’re also very different.

1913 is a significant year for me, in that it is the year that my mother was born, so I’ve thought a lot about what life was like then. She was born into a happy, self-sufficient family. Her mother died of an infection that penicillin could have cured 13 years later,her dad fell apart, and life was something of a mess from then on.
My dad was born into a happy, self-sufficient family in 1910. His dad died of pneumonia (could have been cured by penicillin) in 1919. His mother had two children, and was pregnant at the time. There were no day-care centers then, no laws allowing women to work, no social security benefits for families with a dead father. He went hungry a lot, and didn’t finish growing until he was in his 20’s, because he didn’t get enough to eat until then. This was not an uncommon situation. People idealize the glory days, back when all babies were born in marriage. The reality was, that there were just as many single-parent families back then as there are now, and they were just as dysfunctional as they are now. It’s just that back then, a shot of penicillin would have prevented a lot of single-parent households,including those that both of my hungry, neglected parents grew up in. Don’t romanticize the past.
There is no way that I would want to go back to 1913, when a simple infection could render a family fatherless or motherless, and there were absolutely no social supports, in terms of jobs, daycare, and social security,to help them when disaster struck. Starvation was a real thing then.

M_Young says: “I, admittedly following Sailer, would say that one of the few Freudian concepts with a glimmer of truth applies here. Being sterile themselves, at least if the follow their urges — homosexuals wish others to be. Or, it’s easier to find f*g hags to pal around with when there are a lot of childless (or child free!) woman around.”

What in the hell does penicillin have to do with feminism? For that matter, what in the hell does starvation possibly have to do with the number of women in congress, or whatever other issues feminists seem to concern themselves with nowadays? Really, you seem to have a short attention span.

1. Christianity has not declined in popularity because of how Christians have behaved. There have been plenty of feminists and gay rights activists who have acted like complete jerks (as exemplified by this post), and, yet, . . . they’re winning, at least for now.

2. Feminism, as a label, has acquired a bad reputation because the people who explicitly embrace as term to describe themselves tend to be assholes.

Gretchen ,
Hello!
My daddy was born in 1910, too.
When they survey countries for “happiness”, the poorest nations seem to rank on top.
Death certainly could come earlier in 1913 but that doesn’t mean folks didn’t appreciate life less.I’m listening to a recorded book about the Pilgrims & Gov.Bradford -or one of them- said that the constant presence of death,(half of them died the first year) made life seem even the more sweet & valuable.
Most of us aren’t starved for nutrition these days, but we’re starved for real human contact & fellowship.And quiet time to just reflect & enjoy our families & our blessings.Rushing about makes us less happy & less kind to each other.At least that’s been my perception.

Let me spell this out. Today, you’re a stay-at-home mom with several children. Your husband dies suddenly. This is a devastating, terrifying loss. You don’t know what you are going to do. But you have life insurance, and social security survivors insurance. You get a job, and your prospective employer can’t ask you whether you have children, and how you mean to care for them while you work. And there is a day care center near your home, and the grade school has after-school care for your older children. This is a horrible,immensely painful situation, but there are supports in place for you.
Or, it’s not 2013, but 1913. Your husband has suddenly died. You were doing well last week, but now there is no money coming in. He had no life insurance. There is no social security. His job is over,since he is dead,so no money there. You could get a job? Who would hire a woman? And who would care for your children? Do you have some relatives you can move in with? No? That’s a problem!
I wouldn’t want to be a widowed, pregnant woman in 1913.

Gretchen,
Hello again & thanks for your comments.
I actually went through some of the scenario you presented, but with 8 children & minus the Social Security & life insurance.My job back then paid $5.50 an hour.Friends & our church community helped us survive.
One of my great grandmothers who had 9 children when she was widowed in her 30’s managed to survive in a dirt floored, one room cabin.
All of which are life changing events but my original remark was about happiness,which another commenter had mentioned, not death & insecurity.You can face those & still find joy & have thankfulness for the good things in life, however small.But it’s harder to do that in a modern, fast paced world.
And I am very grateful for penicillin.

Re: There have been plenty of feminists and gay rights activists who have acted like complete jerks (as exemplified by this post), and, yet, . . . they’re winning, at least for now.

I’m not sure that feminism is winning. A lot of feminist issues, like abortion, are at a stalemate, and feminists are facing the fact that most positions of leadership are dominated by men today, and probably into the foreseeable future. This is why if you look at one of the fourth-wave feminist blogs, the prevailing mood is one of fear and outrage. The reason people like Miss Marcotte are so angry and rude all the time is because they’re worried about losing.

Hector: Modern feminists, for the most part, don’t just want legal equality and the ability to be supported in any lifestyle or career choice they might make. They want a world in which *in fact*, women have an equal share of political, economic and relationship power as men, and if biology militates against that world, then to hell with biology.

I’m not sure I agree. I think such people are a relatively small group who get disproportionate attention in the media. I don’t think the vast majority of the population has even heard of them, and I don’t necessarily think they speak for all feminists, either.

Like, for example, to your remark about ‘equality’, I’d say, what does ‘equality’ mean? I think women should have an equal right to be political leaders as men….

Well, add “any profession, assuming they can qualify” to “political leaders”, and you’ve defined it for me. Simple.

I don’t think any reasonable person thinks there should be absolute equality of outcome—if a woman isn’t strong enough to be a firefighter, it’s no disparagement to her if she can’t be one. If (as is the case) women science PhD’s cluster in biology and men in physics, no problem; and so on. I can say the following things, though:

One, I’ve been in lower-echelon managerial roles and been privy to male managers who’d speak one way in general but another way when only the boys were around, and I can tell you there’s a lot of really nasty sexism still out there. I also know women whose word I could trust who told tales of such things, too. Different outcomes for women might partly be due to different preferences and aptitudes, but sexism is still the cause of a not-insignificant amount.

Two, in our fallen world, masculinity and femininity can be warped. The drive for leadership that probably is more characteristic of men can become the need to dominate and control. The more interpersonal orientation of women can become manipulativeness and passive-aggressiveness. It’s a hoary cliché that men need to “get in touch” with their feminine sides, and vice versa, and such a cliché, dripping of the 70’s, is easily ridiculed. However, I think a case can be made that some of the rough edges—some of the sinful tendencies proper to each gender—can be smoothed out at least a bit, and that if each gender learned a little bit more about how the other thinks, and how to appreciate and tolerate that difference more, it wouldn’t be a bad thing. To be blunt, every man is an a****** at times, and every woman a b****. Each of us can learn to suppress our a*****ery or b*****iness at least some. In that sense, getting in touch with our other side is not that unreasonable, I submit.

Thursday: Feminism, as a label, has acquired a bad reputation because the people who explicitly embrace as a term to describe themselves tend to be assholes.

Any group or perspective that brings about substantial societal change tends to get perceived as assholes, don’t you think? I’m sure slaveowners thought abolitionists were a bunch of meddling assholes; corporate owners look at labor organizers as assholes; the pagan Romans thought those upstart Christians were assholes; and so on.

Addendum: This isn’t the case among people who embrace the term Christian, or even the term traditionalist.

I don’t think it takes much looking around to note an extraordinarily high percentage of assholes among the leadership of organized Christianity, Thursday—look at the Catholic bishops in the wake of the pedophilia crisis, for example. In fact, I sometimes wonder if assholery is a requirement for advancement in Christian ministry—and I’m a Christian myself. I’ve certainly personally known my fair share of priests who were assholes, so I’m not unwilling to call out my own side.

I don’t know if you’ve read the things Another Matt has written here about his crazy fundamentalist upbringing, or if you’ve ever lived in a hotbed of crazy fundamentalism such as the Appalachia of my youth (thank God my family wasn’t fundamentalist), or if you have pagan or ex-Christian friends who have been hurt in real ways by churches and individuals claiming to be Christian; but trust, me, there are more than a few legitimate reasons that some people might see Christians as, yes, assholes. Remember the truism that the best argument against Christianity is usually Christians.

“I assume the intention was to use “discrimination” in the admittedly loose but culturally common sense of “unjust discrimination” or “discrimination for reasons irrelevant to one’s job, value to society, etc.”

But what is ‘unjust’ discrimination. Is it unjust that ugly guys don’t get into clubs? Unless they have money that is. Look up ‘face control’ if the link doesn’t work.

Or take basketball. The height of the basket is totally arbitrary — and if it were lower (or signficantly higher)– height would be less of an advantage. The very rules of basketball discriminate against the short — should it be forced to change? This isn’t an idle question — a Stanford golfer sued the PGA because it wouldn’t let him ride in a cart (he had limited use of one of his legs). The PGA maintained that walking the course was an integral part of the game — I’d agree — but more importantly government has no business setting the rules for sports.

M_Young, I repeat Emerson from another thread: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.” I’d add “and of blog arguments”.

The only two perfectly consistent positions is that anyone ought to be allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason at all, period, and if anyone doesn’t like it, that’s just too bad (“We don’t serve people with blue shirts in here!”); or that no one is allowed to discriminate against anyone, ever (“The bar regulation commission finds your establishment guilty of not admitting ugly dudes and you will be fined accordingly!” Or, think “Harrison Bergeron”).

Anything between those two extremes, which are hopefully self-evidently absurd (though I assume you’d incline towards the first) is going to be inconsistent in some ways, of course. You know what, though? Life is inconsistent, and only “small minds” let that become a “hobgoblin”. ‘Nuff said.

Hi, Mrs. Cracker! I’m sorry you had such a hard time, and glad you were able to make it through with your love of life intact. I agree that social supports, family and friends are crucial for happiness. I thought that one of the reasons my parents weren’t terribly happy was because they’d pull up roots and move every time my dad got a better job. I resolved to raise my children in one place, and give them roots. Two of them are staying here, but the other two are in New York City.
I’ve seen a couple of surveys of “happiest countries”. One was heavy on Central and South American countries as happiest, but it the others, the Scandinavian countries, along with Australia, New Zealand, and Canada took up most of the top 10. Places with universal health care and family-friendly policies such as long maternity/paternity leaves, more vacation than is typical in the US to spend time with that family and friends, cheap or free education from preschool through universitiy. And much, much less income inequality. The Scandinavian culture values everyone doing well, and makes policies to make that happen. Our culture recently has devolved into an angry suspicion that anything someone else has (even something as simple as health insurance), is subtracted from what we have, and must be stopped.

As a proponent of reproductive rights (including abortion), I obviously sympathize more with the cause these women are attempting to represent, but I don’t sympathize in the least with their methods. If you are going to picket a cathedral, do so in a peaceable and respectful manner. Above all, converse with people, do not shout, spray, and spit at them. Who could they possibly convince by these actions?

That said, I find the forbearance of the men guarding the cathedral quite amazing, almost Ghandian in quality. Their dignity and restraint wins any argument, if we judge the causes represented by the behavior of their adherents.

@El Mono Liso,
I understand where you’re coming from, living in a country where memories of The Dirty War color people’s perspectives, and I understand your point about the incomplete separation of church and state in Argentina, but even if by local standards this can somehow be considered “legitimate protest,” exactly how is this kind of action going to change anything? It looks more like an absurdist attempt at self expression than an attempt to organize or convince people. What is the point?

Gretchen ,
I think happiness is a state of mind & can transcend circumstances.And sure, surveys vary depending on the questions & who’s posing them & who’s answering.
You have a wonderful weekend.
God bless!

Maybe it’s a reaction to being born in raised in San Francisco,CA but the older I become the more anti-feminist, anti-abortion, anti-homosexual “activist” (that doesn’t mean I am against people who struggle with homosexuality, but I am against the activists). I have embraced a more traditional Christianity. First being baptized Roman Catholic, then gravitating toward the Tridentine Latin Mass and eventually converting to Eastern Orthodox Christianity. The world is going one way and I am headed in the other direction. I cannot stand it any longer. I cannot be politically correct any longer. If something is wrong I will yell that its wrong from the mountain tops and damn the consequences because Christ was fearless when he spoke.

Despite the myth of Argentina as a “Third World” nation, it is ecologically (like China) an extreme “First World” nation with on average some of the richest soils of any country. Argentina is virtually devoid of podsolised, kandic, or serpentine soils than one finds in parts of the US.

It may be the radical individualism is an inherent part of the ecology of such a benign land as southern South America, which had the perverse effect of preventing indigenous agriculture, let alone civilisation. All its animals are highly egalitarian and non-social, so domestication was impossible and encephalisation noticeably absent, as Antoni Milewski notes in his article “Austral-avian intelligence”.

It may be that Christianity by its nature has an even more tenuous hold on a region where the natural tendency is towards such radical egalitarianism than in Eurasia or North America. Moreover, its natural soil resources do not give Argentina the wealth it had over 100 years ago, and tendencies towards extreme violence are well-known in all of the Enriched World, so “A. G. Phillbin”, I cannot say that the Left will ever believe in conversing with Catholicism.

The contrast between the humble dignity of these MEN and the depraved behaviour of these soulless females, seemed almost biblical. This is how it must have been in the Colosseum when the Christians sang and prayed together as they were being thrown to the lions in front of a baying crowd heathens.

If there is a Devil – On the 24 November 2013, (thanks to a small group of Righteous MEN) he took one hell of a whipping.

So this is what happens when femininity is allowed to be destroyed. i.e.. *Feminism*

Be in no doubt, the ugly self-entitled, slut-encouraging form of feminism being foisted on us today is evil and dangerous.

Under the cloak of women gaining voting rights – feminism has been allowed to get away with an unbelievable amount of mission creep which is systematically dismantling everything that binds civilised societies together.

Unless this insidious movement is checked and reversed, our children’s children will be living in a new dark age.

And when the only law is the law of the jungle, guess which gender will suffer the most.

Wake up women. It’s time you made a stand against these hate stoking fem-Fascists.